Ah, so you are one of those that confuses "Just a theory" with "Just a hypothesis". I used to be one of those.

Actually, trees dont use capillary action to raise the water from root to leaf. This would be quite impossible, since the highest you can go with capillary action is about 30 ft. Trees use a combination of hydrostatic pressure and osmotic interchange to move the water up.

As for what creates the surface tension which drives capillary action, you should have simply googled intermolecular attraction.

London dispersion forces (Instantaneous dipole/ induced dipole)

Main article: London dispersion force
The London dispersion force otherwise known as quantum induced instantaneous polarization (one of the three types of van der Waals forces) is caused by instantaneous changes in the dipole of atoms, caused by the location of the electrons in the atoms' orbitals. The probability of an electron in an atom is given by the Schrödinger equation. When an electron is on one side of the nucleus, this side becomes slightly negative (indicated by δ-); this in turn repels electrons in neighbouring atoms, making these regions slightly positive (δ+). This induced dipole causes a brief electrostatic attraction between the two molecules. The electron immediately moves to another point and the electrostatic attraction is broken..
London Dispersion forces are typically very weak (see the comparison below) because the attractions are so quickly broken, and the charges involved are so small.[1][edit] Dipole-Dipole Interactions

Dipole-Dipole interactions, also called Keesom interactions after Willem Hendrik Keesom, are caused by permanent dipoles in molecules. When one atom is covalently bonded to another with a significantly different electronegativity, the electronegative atom draws the electrons in the bond nearer to itself, becoming slightly negative. Conversely, the other atom becomes slightly positive. Electrostatic forces are generated between the opposing charges and the molecules align themselves to increase the attraction (reducing potential energy).
An example of dipole-dipole interactions can be seen in hydrogen chloride:
This is not an example of hydrogen bonding (see below) because the chlorine atom is not electronegative enough.
Note that almost always the dipole-dipole interaction between two atoms is zero, because atoms rarely carry a permanent dipole, see atomic dipoles.
Often, molecules can have dipoles within them, but have no overall dipole moment. This occurs if there is symmetry within the molecule, causing the dipoles to cancel each other out. This occurs in molecules such as tetrachloromethane.[edit] Hydrogen bonding

Main article: Hydrogen bond
Hydrogen bonds are a stronger form of dipole-dipole interactions, caused by highly electronegative atoms. They only occur between hydrogen and oxygen, fluorine or nitrogen,[2] and are the strongest intermolecular force. The high electronegativities of F, O and N create highly polar bonds with hydrogen, which leads to strong bonding between hydrogen atoms on one molecule and the lone pairs of F, O or N atoms on adjacent molecules. The high boiling point of water is an effect of the extensive hydrogen bonding between the molecules:
For quite some time it was believed that hydrogen bonding required an explanation that was different from the other intermolecular interactions. However, reliable computer calculations that became possible during the 1980s have shown that only the four effects listed above play a role, with the dipole-dipole interaction being particularly important. Since the four effects account completely for the bonding in small dimers like the water dimer, for which highly accurate calculations are feasible, it is now generally believed that no other bonding effects are operative.[citation needed]
Hydrogen bonds are found throughout nature. In water the dynamics of these bonds produce unique properties essential to all known life-forms. Hydrogen bonds, between hydrogen atoms and nitrogen atoms, of adjacent DNA base pairs generate intermolecular forces that improve binding between the strands of the molecule. Hydrophobic effects between the double-stranded DNA and the solute nucleoplasm prevail in sustaining the double-helix structure of DNA.

As for gravity, sure, you can certainly glean some energy by properly utilizing it. Hydro-electric dams for starters. But remember, the energy from those comes from the sun ultimately. Hopefully you can see how.

Thank you for blinding us with scientific detail once more.

However you forgot to tell us where the energy ultimately comes from on a molecular level for the Law of Conservation of Energy to apply.

However you forgot to tell us where the energy ultimately comes from on a molecular level for the Law of Conservation of Energy to apply.

If you can't then the energy must be 'free'.

Actually, I did. I am sorry, but if you cant read a few paragraphs, you will never understand complex ideas. THe simple, and wildly incomplete answer is, that it is the asymmetrical intermolecular attraction that occurs at the surface of the liquid. In water, the hydrogen atoms are always trying to bond to the oxygen atoms in other molecules. Because it is already firmly bonded to its own oxygen molecule, there is not enough energy to actually bond, but there is enough for a fairly strong attractive force to exist. Your definition of "free" energy seems to me to be a bit skewed. As I said, you could theoretically use this as a very small energy source (ever put a drop of soap on a toothpick and watch it move on the surface of calm water?) but that is about the only application for it.

Please elaborate further, Gale, if you can, as to why you consider Jane Doe's use of the words "in deed" as Neuro-Linquistic Programming and what problem this presents for you, if you do, "in deed" have a problem with it.

You're the one who claims to be a victim of mind control and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, not me.

Actually, I did. I am sorry, but if you cant read a few paragraphs, you will never understand complex ideas. THe simple, and wildly incomplete answer is, that it is the asymmetrical intermolecular attraction that occurs at the surface of the liquid. In water, the hydrogen atoms are always trying to bond to the oxygen atoms in other molecules. Because it is already firmly bonded to its own oxygen molecule, there is not enough energy to actually bond, but there is enough for a fairly strong attractive force to exist. Your definition of "free" energy seems to me to be a bit skewed. As I said, you could theoretically use this as a very small energy source (ever put a drop of soap on a toothpick and watch it move on the surface of calm water?) but that is about the only application for it.

Hope that was simple enough for you.

I strongly detect that you are attempting to hide behind a cloud of scientific obscurity.

I put the question to you again: does capillary action drain these molecules of energy causing them to measurably cool for example?

It was Jane Doe whom you said was repeating the words, "in deed" and inferred that she was using NLP programming, but now you're saying that I'm repeating the words "in deed."

HUH?

Please, Gale, try to remember that which you write so I don't have to remind you.

I think it is you who considers it a game and a joke inasmuch as I inquired of you as to why you considered that Jane Doe was using NLP programming through the use of her repetition of the words "in deed" and you have not yet answered other than to insinuate that since I'm a mind control victim and, because you believe I've spoken about NLP, I should answer the question that I posed to you.

Sorry, pal.

But, that's not the way it happens around these parts.

You accused Jane Doe of using NLP programming with her use of the words "in deed" on numerous occassions.

I asked you to explain.

You didn't.

Instead you deflected.

Now, you, sir, are called to task and not me.

You made the claim that Jane Doe was using NLP progrmaming with her use of the words "in deed."

You made the claim.

Now you need to explain it.

Explain why you think the words "in deed" as used by Jane Doe on numerous occasions are considered by you to be NLP programming.

Don't deflect my question to you unto me.

Everything I have said so far on the subject is quite self-evident and not in need of further explanation.

You will not succeed in hounding further information out of me, mainly because there isn't any available.

BlueAngel, you are clearly wasting time AND space.

And I would directly contradict what you have just said, you DID repeat "in deed" and in a mocking, sarcastic manner, indicating quite plainly that you didn't take the subject seriously at all.

You haven't said anything about NLP that is self-evident because, as you said, you don't know anything about NLP so, how on earth could you possibly point out anything about NLP that is self-evident when, in your own words, you don't know anything about it?

Confused much?

I'll say.

You just figured Jane Doe was using NLP with her repetition of the words, "in deed," even though you don't know anything about NLP.

Okay, whatever, Gale,

I guess all of this somehow plays into your theory that the Space Shuttle and ISS don't exist.

Delusional?

Obviously, you don't take the subject of NLP seriously, because you don't know anything about it.

You are clearly wasting time and space, Gale, because, when I questioned your accusations about Jane Doe using NLP, instead of expounding, you tried to detract by pointing your finger at me because I used the words "in deed" one time and because I WAS a mind control victim, you somehow thought I was responsible for elaborating as to your suggestion that Jane Doe was using NLP.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works around these parts, pal.

You suggested that Jane Doe was using NLP; you pointed it out; I questioned you; you are the one who needs to answer and not me.

As I said, you can try to detract by pointing your finger at me, but, it is not I who suggested Jane Doe was using NLP.

It was you.

If you didn't have any further information available about NLP other than randomly suggesting a member might be using it, and didn't want me to hound you further, you shouldn't have stated what you did.

Clearly, you know not of what you speak.

That, my friend, is the only self-evidence you have provided.

I would like to make the following points:

1. I never claimed to be an expert on Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

2. Why should I be obliged to explain to all what NLP is when it can be found easily enough on the internet?

3. I would like to remind you this thread is NOT on the subject of NLP but on FREE ENERGY.